TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....&B (AAA) Rules, 2016 was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated April 11th, 2018 (Admission Order') by initiating CIRP, appointing Shri Balady Shekar Shetty (IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00213/2017-2018/10665 as appointed as the IRP, moratorium etc. Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor confirmed the appointment of Shri Balady Shekar Shetty as the Resolution Professional. (2) It is stated that the Corporate Debtor purchased Iron and Steel materials from the Applicant/Claimant under 16 credit bills from 25.01.2011 to 18.02.2011 for a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,13,240/- and the same has been duly acknowledged by the Corporate Debtor vide letter dated 31.03.2011. The Corporate Debtor vide its letter dated 11.04.2011 gave 16 postdated cheques towards the payment of the credit bills amounting to Rs. 2,00,13,240/-. The Corporate Debtor has also executed an on-demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt dated 11.04.2011 for the consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,13,240/- due towards the credit purchases made by it against the aforesaid 16 credit bills. The Corporate Debtor had issued three post-dated cheques on 10.06.2011 amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stayed by Moratorium due to the CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor, which is otherwise pending on the files of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The claim of the Applicant/Claimant is not only supported by pending proceeding in Civil Court but is also supported by the cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor in discharge of its admitted liability under the 3 credit bills and the on demand Promissory Note and consideration Receipt issued by the Corporate Debtor in favour of Applicant/Claimant. It would amount to grave miscarriage of justice against the Applicant/Claimant if the claim of the Applicant/Claimant is not considered. (6) It is stated that plain reading of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that when a cheque is issued by any person there is a presumption that the same was issued in discharge of legal debt and the Hon'ble Apex Court has fortified and the said prescribed law in plethora of precedents laid down by it. The Resolution Professional has rejected the claims of the Applicant/Claimant due to various reasons i.e., the claim arising from the 3 bills all dated 28.01.2011 and the three dishonoured cheques given by the Company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in question, are as follows: (1) It is stated that the Corporate Debtor purchased Iron and Steel materials from the Applicant/Claimant under four (4) credit bills which are dated 02.02.2011 for Rs. 14,82,000/- Rs. 14,82,000/-, Rs. 12,64,640/- and Rs. 16,20320/- amounting to Rs. 58,48,960/. The Corporate Debtor between January to February 2011 had purchased materials under 16 (sixteen bills) for a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,13,240/- including the present purchase of 4 bills. Vide letter dated 31.03.2011 the Corporate Debtor have acknowledged the purchases under the said 16 bills. Towards the payment of the aforesaid 4 bills the Corporate Debtor vide its letter dated 11.04.2011 gave 16 post-dated cheques, one cheque against each corresponding credit bill, amounting to Rs. 2,00,13,240/-. The Corporate Debtor had also executed on on-demand Promissory Note and Consideration Receipt dated 11.04.2011 for the consolidated sum of Rs. 2,00,13,240/- due towards the credit purchases made by it against the aforesaid 16 bills. (2) It is also stated that the present claim is in respect of the 4 credit bills dated 02.02.2011 for Rs. 14,82,000/-, Rs. 14,82,000/-, Rs. 12,64,640/- and Rs. 16,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d his claim in Form B vide dated 08.07.2019 for Rs. 1,15,92,274/-. Pre-sequent to filing the claim in Form B vide dated 08.07.2019, the Applicant had filed the claim reflecting from the same invoice numbers in Form C vide dated 15.06.2019 and again in Form B vide dated 29.06.2019. After perusal of Form B submitted by the Applicant, the Respondent/RP of the Corporate Debtor issued a notice vide dated 14.07.2019 to the Applicant soliciting certain documents for substantiating his claim filed in Form B dated 08.07.2019. (2) The Resolution Professional vide its notice dated 14.07.2019 had made the following observation- a. The claims arising from the bills dated 28.01.2011 towards the payment is a multiple claim and that the said claim is already included in the consolidated claim for Rs. 2,00,26,072/- in Form C dated 15.06.2019 and again in claim in Form B dated 29.06.2019. b. Copy of the contract between the Corporate Debtor and the Applicant/Claimant herein is not produced. c. The copy of the Purchase Order issued by the Corporate Debtor is not produced. d. The copy of the VAT returns and the payment of VAT against the aforesaid bills is not produced. e. The statement of....